May 03, 2024, 03:48:49 AM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Arcanus

Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18
226
General Questions / Re: Equipment
« on: October 11, 2012, 02:02:43 PM »
Ha!  Your welcome.  And thank you Shadow for watching the forums and doing such a great job!  The whole team really appreciates you sir!  

Please email me if you ever need me to pop in or help out!

Now we need some ideas for great cursed items!   :evil:

227
General Questions / Re: Equipment
« on: October 11, 2012, 01:44:37 PM »
Control of a spell remains with whomever cast the spell, unless something specifically wrests control away (such as the spell "Steal Enchantment").  This is defined under "Controller" in the Codex.  

You cannot pass spell control just by casting a spell on a friendly or enemy target.  

If the spell being cast has upkeep costs, these are handled by the controller.

Some spells grant traits or abilities to the target of the spell.  For example; "Mage gains Armor +2".  In this case it is referring to the target of the spell, not the controller.  Thus, you can give a friendly Mage some Armor or a regen belt.

Mage Wand grants an ability to the target Mage, to be able to cast a bound spell as if it were in his hand as a planned spell.  It also allows him to change spells out as needed.

If you cast and resolve a Mage Wand on a friendly Mage on your team, you can bind a spell to it (which is chosen from the caster's spellbook, not the target's). Your teammate could use that spell, or replace it with a new one.  Your teammate gets the benefit of using the wand as a new ability, just as if you cast a weapon on him and he gains a new attack ability.  However, the controller of the Wand is still the original caster, although it may not mean very much.  

Casting a Mage Wand on an enemy has the same effect, and really has no benefit for the caster.  The idea of casting equipment on enemy Mages is there for future planned spells - such a sending over a goblin grenade!

228
General Questions / Re: Reverse Magic and timing with Enchantments
« on: October 11, 2012, 12:45:36 PM »
Okay, good example.  

1. The enemy mage pays 2 mana and casts Force Hold face down.  
2. You reveal Reverse Magic, pay 5 mana, and then gain control of Force Hold.  
3. You attach Force Hold on the enemy Mage.  This does not cost you any mana, the casting cost has already been paid by your opponent.
4. You can now flip and reveal Force Hold, if you wish, which costs you another 2 mana.

Reverse Magic is pricey when working against enchantments.  In some cases, stopping and reversing their action is a terrible surprise that is worth that cost. You can, of course, choose to not pay the reveal cost when it is revealed, which will just cancel and destroy Reverse Magic without effect.

Reverse Magic is particularly effective against incantations.  

Reverse attack can be expensive, especially if attacked by a weak attack.  However, reversing an 8 mana Fireball is awesome!

229
Rules Discussion / Re: Decoy: Confirmation of Use
« on: October 09, 2012, 08:38:54 PM »
You are correct on both counts sir.

The decoy was designed to encourage players to bluff, by making it very affordable. Because you get your mana back when destroyed (not just from revealing) the only cost is putting it in your spellbook and the quick spell casting action.  If you can prevent the Warlock from attacking you with Fireballs because he thinks you have "reverse attack" on yourself, it is well worth the cost. You could use it to store mana as well, although the coming mana battery will be much more effective for that!

230
Rules Discussion / Re: Friendly Nullify on opponent creature
« on: October 08, 2012, 04:04:33 PM »
Hi guys,

Nullify refers to opponents of the controller of Nullify (not opponents of the target of Nullfiy).

This was intentional, so that Nullify could be used to protect your own creatures from harmful spells (while not limiting your own), and also be used to keep the enemy from buffing their own creatures.  For example, it could be used against the Beastmaster, when he is going to buff a big creature with Bear Strength.

In the example given with Dissolve and Reverse Magic, you are correct, the Nullfiy would not trigger against the Dissolve you now control.

231
Rules Discussion / Re: Seeking Dispel
« on: October 06, 2012, 08:37:27 PM »
You were right - the answer is no.  

The reason why is that Seeking Dispel, like all other spells in Mage Wars, is not cast as a reaction.  It can only be cast as part of the action phase or using the quickcast action.

Thus, player B could not react to the enchantment being revealed by interrupting that player to immediately cast Seeking Dispel.  Not could it be used during the counter spell step.

The correct question would be - when player B casts Seeking Dispel, can player A reveal an enchantment?  The answer is - NO, he cannot reveal the enchantment which is the target of the spell.  However, he could reveal a different enchantment, during the counter spell step.

232
Spells / Re: Most efficient creature
« on: October 06, 2012, 12:20:54 PM »
Wow!  Thanks - that is so appreciated!  We worked so hard on this for so many years.  We wanted to make the ideal mage combat we as gamers would want to play.  Thanks for noticing!   :)

233
Spells / Re: Most efficient creature
« on: October 05, 2012, 11:17:07 AM »
Sorry Shadow!  Please feel free to elaborate!

234
Spells / Re: Most efficient creature
« on: October 05, 2012, 10:54:07 AM »
Wow! Very impressive!

The math behind Mage Wars is extremely complicated.  We use over 70 spreadsheets to govern the math.  We called in a team of programmers to help refine and finalize the algorithms used.  In the end, it's what held Mage Wars up the longest.

One of the challenges was determining how much are the attack dice and armor are worth.  The value of the attack dice is based upon the armor of the target.  If typical creatures in your games have high armor, then the value of each additional attack die becomes exponential.  If most creatures have armor 0-1, then additional attack dice tend to "flatline".  The typical armor of creatures will depend upon who you are playing, and the creatures available in the set, their mana cost (frequency of appearance) and their durability (how likely they are to remain in the arena).  The actual formula by necessity has iterations in it based on these factors, and in the end is really more of a "good calculated guess supported by playtesting results"!   :)

The values for Flying, Fast, Incorporeal, are similarly based upon how effective they are based on current creatures and attacks.  For example, if 70% of attacks are Ethereal, then Incorporeal has a lot less meaning. Or, if your opponent is usually low on ranged attacks and flyers, then a single buffed flyer can wreak havoc against him.

The value of each creature trait is dependent on who you are playing against, and the likelihood of encountering creatures or spells which work well or poorly against their traits.  The math shifts slightly too with each new expansion release, as new traits and abilities change the relative values of past traits.  To some degree the math is based on Mage Wars as a whole, including sets that won't be released until 2013.

Another interesting challenge was determining how to scale mana cost based on creature size.  If 2 creatures both have the same attack, but one has twice the Life, how much more is that worth?  Certainly not double,or else you could buy 2 of the smaller creatures for the same price, who would be dealing 2X the damage.  We originally used a logarithm to scale creatures, so that as they double in durability or effectiveness (attack) their value increases by 60%.  Later, as new methods were introduced making it easier to control larger creatures effectively, and as guarding evolved so that smaller creatures were more important, we had to change our scaling to use a square root so that the increase was closer to 41%

The real value of a creature depends upon your own spellbook synergy (what works best with the other spells you have), and what the other player is going to play. However, all of that being said, it is important to determine some average value for each trait, attack, and creature, so that mana costs are in a reasonably fair range, and consistent. In the end, that's what we tried to accomplish.

I am impressed by the math being done here and I am curious what conclusions are drawn and what players think!

235
General Discussion / Re: Looking for a little disclosure
« on: October 01, 2012, 10:35:30 AM »
Quote from: "Koz" post=1494


By the way, I'm not sure why this is, but maybe you can answer this as well Arcanus.  I bought the Core Spell Tome from my local game store, but it cost $30.  I asked him why it cost so much, when it's only $20 online, and he said that he paid $20 from the distributor himself.  At first I thought it was just an online only product and the distributors were paying full price, but when I read your comment about your plan to "sell through the retailer" I was a bit confused.  Do you have any insight on why there is such a cost difference for that product between online sales and my local game store?


Hello Koz, sorry for the delayed response. That is weird!  We sell the Core Spell Tome to ALL distributors for $8.  That is our standard price worldwide.  They, in turn, sell it to retailers for $10 (25% markup).  We sell to the 8 largest  distributors in the USA.  Retailers should be able to buy the Core Spell Tome from any USA distributor for $10.  Retailers in turn, double the price to $20 when they sell to customers.  Those margins are standard throughout the industry.

If your retailer pal would like to contact us, our phone is 972-429-4791. If a distributor is unfairly marking something up we can take care of that very quickly!   :)

236
General Questions / Re: Can Jinx counter Seeking Dispel?
« on: September 28, 2012, 11:35:34 AM »
Nicely handled Shadow!

237
General Discussion / Re: Looking for a little disclosure
« on: September 28, 2012, 11:29:41 AM »
Thanks Shadow!  Great questions guys.

Mage wars was made from the ground up by gamers for gamers.  We did not want to be collectible, and wanted to be a very affordable game for everyone.  We truly do not want players having to buy anything extra.  And, if you do, we want to make it efficient and affordable.

We realize there is a growing demand for more copies of some of the cards.  We are working hard on the best, most practical solution.  Let me give you some background information, and then please comment and give us your opinion.

When we designed the Core Spell Tome we put a copy of 104 unique spells in there, with only 6 duplications of very common spells.  

The main game has 322 spells, of which 174 are unique.  This means the Core Spell Tome does not contain 70 of the main game spells.  

Because cards are printed in sheets of 110, we could only include 110 cards total. The choices were extremely tough!  In the end, we chose to not duplicate anything Legendary or Epic, as well as some of the bigger more expensive spells, and also many equipment items, of which you could only have 1 in play at a time.  Extra Fireball or extra Staff of Asyra?!

Here are a few solutions we are looking at, and we'd love your thoughts on this:

2nd Core Spell Tome
This new Core Spell Tome has the other 70 spells not included in the first tome (1 copy of each). Then, it would have 40 other spells, which would be duplicated by the first spell tome, and we would probably select additional copies of the most common spells to help beef those up better.
In this manner, if you bought both tomes, you'd have an extra copy of every spell in the game, plus 2-3 copies of the most common cards.
If the demand is there, we could put this together and have it in stores in 6-8 weeks. Printing here in the USA really helps!  (Otherwise this product would be 3 months away.)

Single Spells Shop
We could setup a single spell shop on our website, allowing players to buy just the cards they need.  In order to cover the costs of the shop (with a physical location and labor to package orders) the cards would naturally cost more than if you bought 110 at a time in a Core Spell Tome.  However, the advantage would be you could buy just the ones you want/need and keep the total cost down.
This shop would more than likely take up to 3 months to setup - we'd be looking at January 2013.
As much as possible we want to sell through, work through, and support the game stores. We could sell huge spell packs to retailers who also want to establish a singles shop in their store, so they could do this affordably.  

Mage Booster Tome
We could produce a separate tome for each Mage.  This tome has all the spells that Mage would typically want to use, with lots of copies of the level one spells.  For example, the Warlock pack would ensure you'd have enough spells, so that with the main game, you'd have 4 Fireballs, 6 Flameblasts, 6 Firebarand Imps, and 2 Hellfire Lashes, etc.
Players could get everything they want and need for one Mage. The problem with this option is that there are 4 separate products here, which are a lot for players to purchase and collect, if they want to boost all the Mages.
Also, we are a little concerned that retailers may not want 4 separate SKUs on their shelves, which may make this an online only product.  This goes against our "sell through the retailer plan", but is still worth considering if the player demand is in this direction.
Like the 2nd Core Spell Tome, we could have these available in 6-8 weeks.

Thanks in advance for your input and suggestions!

238
General Questions / Re: Can Jinx counter Seeking Dispel?
« on: September 27, 2012, 11:27:42 AM »
Thanks for the compliment!

This is a really good question!

Okay, here is how this is resolved:

Casting a spell has 3 steps:
1) Cast Spell
2) Counter Spell
3) Resolve Spell

When Seeking Dispel is cast, as part of Step 1 it prevents the target enchantment from revealing.
When Step 2 is reached, the Jinx has already been locked down and cannot be revealed.  
So, the Jinx is destroyed without being revealed.

The wording on these 2 spells conflict each other, because Jinx says "must".  In cases like this where 2 equal events happen which conflict, we first default to the time sequence for resolution.  In which case we default to the first event that occurred - the Seeking Dispel preventing the revealing.  

In Mage Wars, everything happens in order, in sequence, and whenever possible we resolve conflicts in sequence, with later events not being able to change prior events.  

In rare cases, when using time sequence does not work, we default to the Initiative order, and let the player with initiative decide (that makes it easy and fullproof!   :) )

Hope this helps!

239
General Questions / Re: How does Stun work?
« on: September 26, 2012, 07:59:07 PM »
Sharp - those were great answers!  If you get a chance and would like to chat for a moment, please shoot me an email at bryanpope@arcanewonders.com.  Thanks!

240
Rules Discussion / Re: Double Casting a Wand
« on: September 19, 2012, 02:13:23 PM »
What a great question!  And good answer Klaxus.

In order to change out spells, you must spend 3 mana and do this as a quick spell action.  You do not have to replace the spell, you can just unbind it to return it to your spellbook.  

The cost (3 mana), and the action (quick spell) used to unbind the spell to return it to your library is pretty steep just to get a spell back. However, you might do this if its your last Minor Heal and the other player is likely to destroy your wand!   :)

Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18